Good Christian morality is better than bad science

Even before the controversies surrounding Eric Abetz’s remarks on Channel Ten’s The Project, the World Congress of Families was under fire for its endorsement of Angela Lanfranchi’s research linking abortion to breast cancer.

Dr Lanfranchi was accused by feminist writer Van Badham of 'peddling… information out of a concern for women's health, while playing down their theological or political agenda.'

Badham’s implication was that Dr Lanfranchi and others have tried to develop medical scientific or psychological arguments against abortion. The specifics of the arguments differ, but the general point is the same. Abortion is against the best interests of women, and activists who defend it as a means of advancing the wellbeing of women are mistaken.

Although it’s very likely that Dr Lanfranchi genuinely believes her argument to be true, it still doesn’t give voice to what anti-choice activists actually argue is wrong with abortion; namely, that the foetus is a morally precious person with infinite value and dignity. Instead of making this powerful claim, scientific proponents dilute the argument in order to make it more palatable to a potentially hostile audience.

It’s important that we not assign motive and assume that any medical scientific argument (or, for that matter legal, practical or psychological argument) against abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, or other heated moral issue is actually subversive ideology. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to believe that some such arguments are - from both sides of these debates.

Subversion of this sort is problematic for anybody interested in truth and integrity in public debate. For one thing, if proponents of a particular perspective aim to support their arguments with facts rather than ideas, they are at constant risk of losing the argument if the facts change.

Consider, for instance, the possibility that it is true that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. For those who oppose abortions, this makes a compelling case for minimising abortions, but if, say, we were able to sever the link, then the argument against abortion would disappear. I suspect, though, that many with a stake in the scientific argument would not so readily abandon their position. There is good reason for this: because arguments against abortion exist in deeper, more powerful forms, even if they are less effective at gaining popular support.

To mask beliefs in another form (if, and when, that occurs) is to immediately concede that they are shameful, unpopular, or prima facie unacceptable. Why would I try to sneak my argument through the back door if I genuinely believed it to be true? Worse than that though, it’s dishonest. The attempt to persuade someone through incidental facts rather than by presenting the strongest possible version of the argument is deceptive and presumptive.

The presumption is that I already possess the truth, and that the task of debate is not, in fact, to debate but to convert. Public discourse becomes an act of salvation. Why not, as Paul asks in Romans 3, simply use whatever means are necessary to persuade people of the truth?

The answer is that the inherent contradiction in the practice of using lies, subversion or deception attacks the same truth it aims to uphold. We have public debates about morality and ethics because reaching the truth of these matters is objectively valuable. When we aim to deceive, we manipulate truth in order to suit our own ends. If we care about truth, we have a duty to present it in its best possible light.

Christian bioethicist Nicholas Tonti-Fillipini has frequently criticised Christian arguments that are separated from Christ himself. This method, even if effective, 'sells [Christians] short and represents a failure to engage in secular discussion on equal terms and a failure to give adequate witness to the teachings of Christ.'

An old expression in the teaching of legal advocacy goes as follows: 'if you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.'

Equally, if you have morality on your side, argue morality; and if you have Christ on your side, argue Christ. The Christian faithful ought not to be afraid of an explicitly Christian, moral voice in public debate. Anything less is dishonest and – potentially – embarrassing.

Recent articles by Matthew Beard.

DID YOU ENJOY THIS ARTICLE?

Unlike many media organisations, Eureka Street doesn't use paywalls. We believe in making the work of our writers as free and accessible as possible.

But there are costs. In particular - and in contrast to many other online publications - we pay our contributors. After all, Eureka Street simply could not exist without the talents, expertise and sheer hard work of our writers and illustrators.

In lieu of paywalls, we rely almost entirely on donations from our readers and organisations that support our endeavours. If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation. Every little bit helps us in our efforts to bring a distinctive, values-based take on the issues and events that matter in our world.

submit a comment

Word Count: 0

Thank you

Existing comments

I agree very much with Matthew's final paragraph. And with the general thrust of his argument. Abortion is an emotive topic. And one where there is significant disagreement, even among Christians. Non-violence should be part of Christian ethics and yet abortion clinics have been bombed by Christians. Some Christians argue for the pregnant woman to be regarded as a morally precious person, with infinite value and dignity and for her to be supported in sometimes very difficult circumstances. That means, to me, regarding her life as of equal importance to the foetus. Pam | 11 August 2014

Well said Matt you flamerDr Van Nostrum | 12 August 2014

Not sure what the point is peddling the term "Chritian morality" is apart from scoring sort of political gain or reverting to some type of self-congratulating tribalism. Surely if an action is good and just and the loving thing to do, then it's inspired by Jesus? Isn't that the whole point of ethics? It's about going through a process, a discernment - not taking sides.AURELIUS | 13 August 2014

Well said Aurelius, caecilius est in horto sedet... my favourite quote from Latin, I find very relevant here.Caecilius | 14 August 2014

Abortion is big business!
What if there is a link between abortion and breast cancer? What an injustice to women by all, including the Church, to shut down the argument and not do considerable research?
Why not at least consider the Natural Law? Let's discuss it.
Professor Boyages made some very considered comments on radio which weren't given much air time.Ma Wi | 17 August 2014